Literature DB >> 23449965

Understanding preference shifts: a review and alternate explanation of within-trial contrast and state-dependent valuation.

James N Meindl1.   

Abstract

Stimuli that precede aversive events are typically less preferred than stimuli that precede nonaversive events. It has recently been demonstrated that stimuli that follow less preferred events may become favored more than stimuli that follow more preferred events. This phenomenon has been investigated under a variety of names, most commonly, within-trial contrast and state-dependent valuation. Although this effect has been replicated, there have been several failures to replicate and it is still little understood. This paper reviews and summarizes the literature on within-trial contrast and state-dependent valuation. Procedural variations across studies are identified and discussed. The two current models that explain the phenomenon are then outlined and the limitations of each model are described. A third explanation is offered that incorporates the concept of motivating operations. Last, the predictions of all three models are compared.

Keywords:  conditioning preference; contrast; motivating operations; state-dependent valuation; within-trial contrast

Year:  2012        PMID: 23449965      PMCID: PMC3501421          DOI: 10.1007/bf03392277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Anal        ISSN: 0738-6729


  21 in total

1.  "Work ethic" in pigeons: reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward.

Authors:  T S Clement; J R Feltus; D H Kaiser; T R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-03

2.  Second-order contrast based on the expectation of effort and reinforcement.

Authors:  Tricia S Clement; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process       Date:  2002-01

3.  Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons.

Authors:  Kelly A DiGian; Andrea M Friedrich; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-10

4.  Pigeons shift their preference toward locations of food that take more effort to obtain.

Authors:  Andrea M Friedrich; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2004-11-30       Impact factor: 1.777

5.  Failure to replicate the 'work ethic" effect in pigeons.

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Peter J Urcuioli; Karen M Lionello-DeNolf
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Deprivation level and choice in pigeons: a test of within-trial contrast.

Authors:  Marco Vasconcelos; Peter J Urcuioli
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Failure to obtain value enhancement by within-trial contrast in simultaneous and successive discriminations.

Authors:  Joana Arantes; Randolph C Grace
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

8.  Preference for a stimulus that follows a relatively aversive event: contrast or delay reduction?

Authors:  Rebecca A Singer; Laura M Berry; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.468

9.  Contrast and the justification of effort.

Authors:  Emily D Klein; Ramesh S Bhatt; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-04

10.  Modifying children's food preferences: the effects of exposure and reward on acceptance of an unfamiliar vegetable.

Authors:  J Wardle; M-L Herrera; L Cooke; E L Gibson
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.016

View more
  1 in total

1.  Contingency Enhances Sensitivity to Loss in a Gambling Task with Diminishing Returns.

Authors:  Jonathan R Miller; Iser G DeLeon; Lisa M Toole; Gregory A Lieving; Melissa J Allman
Journal:  Psychol Rec       Date:  2016-02-24
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.